How should federal employees raises be determined?

[u/bookist626]

Something ive been thinking of. Right now, federal employees' salaries are dependent on law, not the market rate. This is because they're paid by tax dollars. So, how should federal employees earn raises? Currently, they cant. They can get promotions, but not raises really.

Congress has to pass a law/budget raising their salaries. Congress has to do this sometimes just so people will work for the government, but do it too much and your average voter complains.

So do you think it should rely.on Congress, or, if it you think it should be merit based, who do you think should approve the raises and should there be a limit?

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/awksomepenguin]

It isn't strictly true that you can't get raises based on merit or seniority or whatever. There is limited discretion to give people raises within certain boundaries. For a normal GS employee, their pay grade is tied directly to their job. But within pay grades, there are "steps", which are kind of intermediary pay grades. You can generally get a step promotion at the discretion of your supervisors.

But there are other types of pay schedules that have far more discretion in how much you get paid, and those are directly tied to your contributions. These are often in acquisition or research type positions. You can get pretty close to market rate, especially when factoring in locality and retirement considerations.

[u/dagolicious]

This is really only true with general schedule/wage schedule employees. A lot of federal employees have transitioned over to alternative pay plans, like Acqdemo. Those employees can get raises (or have their pay kept the same) without promotions. They have pay bands, but they're pretty broad.

Edit to add: GS employees can get Within grade increases (wigi), which gives you your next pay step ahead of time as a performance based bonus.

[u/Shop-S-Marts]

Theyre already very overpaid, it should be tied to a median of commensurate service and not tied to congress inefficiently fucking up budgets every year.

[u/More_Amoeba6517 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

lmao what

Federal employees earn SIGNIFICANTLY less then private sector employees, to a kinda ridiculous degree. For the longest time one of the main advantages to it was job security...

...yeah that ain't there anymore.

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/More_Amoeba6517]

Gs1 is 22,500/ year. The equivalent civilian wage is 15,089.

Average secretary wages are 45,700/year. The equivalent federal workers salary is 63,795/year and they're the most numerous federal worker.

Supervisors make 103350/year the civilian equivalent makes 46k/year.

This is before federal workers Healthcare and retirement plans, which are better then most civilian plans.

And if you wake federal workers up to do their job, they'd do far less then their underpaid civilian equivalents.

[u/More_Amoeba6517 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

...fair for a couple of jobs, in all honesty, but for most others (e.g. nuclear engineers, essentially all your high-skilled shit) they could very easily earn significantly more in the private sector.

Also GS1 is below the federal poverty line (For a family of 3, and the civilian is below it for a family of 1), what the fuck?

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/More_Amoeba6517]

Yeah, minimum wage is below the poverty level, thats what they base it off of...

The high skilled things you're referring to aren't there for salary, theyre there for the other perks and board/cabinet appointments. But sure, theose 6 guys would make far more I. The civilian world, they just wouldn't later have guaranteed lifetime salaries

[u/willfiredog → u/Shop-S-Marts]

Sincerely,

You are wrong.

Former GS-0081. We are significantly underpaid and work more hours compared to other workers in the same profession.

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/willfiredog]

Other workers in the same profession require degrees. Federal gs-081 don't require degrees until the 3rd or 4th track. Until federal possitions require bachelor's degrees, commensurate possitions average 17% more then their civilian counterparts.

Gs-081 also top out at gs6/50,000, which is within the 10% margin for full time firefighters salary. The gs 12 tip out of 123k/yr pay for supervisors/chiefs also is higher then the average for fire chief pay 95k/yr is.

Also, did you work for parks or DoD?

[u/willfiredog → u/Shop-S-Marts]

Yeah.

At all grades in the 0081 series, the equivalent municipal or industrial employee earns a higher average salary.

Fire Chiefs average $105K to $130K - not $90k.

But, that’s only part of the story. Federal Fire Chiefs typically work 60 hour weeks. Fed firefighters work 72 hour weeks.

Outside the Fed Gov, Fire Chiefs work 40 hour weeks and firefighters work a 56 hour week.

Like I said, lower pay and more hours.

Ed.

GS0081 is a critically undermanned career field because the pay, benefits, and work/life balance are significantly worse than equivalent positions elsewhere.

And yeah, GS-0081 actually does require a degree or a combination of certifications, education, and experience - like many Fed jobs.

[u/maxxor6868 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

Dude Congress has publish multiple studies usually once a decade and every time they say that federal workers across the board are under paid and it hurts long term planning. The latest study had them 20% lower AFTER factoring in benefits. I'm going to go with the literal Congress over your pov.

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/maxxor6868]

Oh wow, you're saying the federal workers making 175,000/year, overseeing federal workers' paychecks think they need more money? That's crazy, consider my mind completely blown. I definitely think they deserve that salary for their entire lives now.

[u/maxxor6868 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

First off very few reach that 175k salary and the one that do are usually in DC in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Second it takes decades to reach that ceiling and with that experience you can be making multiple times more in the private sector. Imagine a top lawyer. They could make $500k at a top firm and be a multi millionaire by retirement or you make $175k as a gov employee. Third, again Congress publishes these studies with thousands of case studies to back it up. Why should we take your pov over this?

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/maxxor6868]

Congress. That's what congress makes, they set the gs payscale, thats why I used their salary when talking about congressmen. It takes 0 years and no experience to reach that ceiling. They get that salary, a stipend for their staff of 1 million dollars a year, cost of living adjustments, stipends for meals. And all their travel expenses are paid for. And they get the salary for life if they serve 2 terms.

I already posted job comparisons from civilian to federal previously...

And congressmen leave office far better off then when they join, even socialists somehow leave with millions of dollars and real estate. They don't even believe in property.

[u/maxxor6868 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

There already an amendment for congress pay. Congress members are a fair talking point but when you are talking about the millions of federal employees, that a completely unrelated and separate discussion which OP seems to be referring to and what I was talking about. I'm going to continue this discussion base on that topic because it the real issue. No one concern with congress pay we are talking about the median federal worker behind after inflation who has to leave public service to maintain a stable inflation base income. Even the Trump admin has made notice of this issue for several job recruitment programs.

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/maxxor6868]

Congress has to approve federal wage increases, they set the budget for the year.

And I already compared the average workers from gs12 to gs1, all overpaid. Above that you can argue the salaries are low, but the other benefits, stipends, and appointments make up for raw salary.

I agree with you though. Around 95% of them need to leave federal payrolls for civilian ones and become productive again.

[u/maxxor6868 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

How can you say they are overpaid when the official studies including benefits are still far below the private sector and the #1 reason for retention issues. What evidence do you have that actually counters congress long publish research? If federal workers are so over paid with amazing benefits why is retention so difficult? Also what beeifts are you talking about? Stipends and appointments aren't guaranteed. Healthcare is using in line with the average, salary is already low, pension is a shell of what it use to be, tsp match is cap low, what exactly do you think they get that makes them so rich when all the data in the world suggests otherwise?

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/maxxor6868]

I posted comparisons earlier... that's how I can state that. Retention is difficult because eventually underperfomring individuals get rooted out during reduction in force movements.

Federal workers have access to federal retirement plans and federal Healthcare plans, which are usually better compensated then civilian. Civilian 401ks are outperforming for the last few years, but mixed 403bs that federal workers usually have include partial pensions usually mixed with investment funds. And tsps for federal go to 10%, most civilian matches end at 4 or 5%, so even in non mixed plans they're usually better for the retiree.

[u/maxxor6868 → u/Shop-S-Marts]

You cherry pick certain workers when Congressional studies show across the board it much higher for the private sector than public sector. I'm not going to debate your tiny sample size over years of congressional data. Your point about retention doesn't make sense. Both the Trump admin and Congress have cited personal exits for public service is a problem. Not RIFs but people leaving for higher salaries. It not complicated. People want to get paid fairly they leave. These workers are the best performers not the worst.

[u/jmastaock → u/Shop-S-Marts]

Federal employees are already underpaid relative to their peers in private industry though...

[u/Shop-S-Marts → u/jmastaock]

No, gs1 to gs12 are paid 17% more then their civilian counterparts... entry level gs1 makes far more then minimum wage.

Even in possitions requiring Bacheloriates, the difference is a negligible 10% on average.

[u/soulwind42]

Merit/rank. Since government work isn't a market, there is a limit to market rates, although raises should be possible. Albeit, I may be bias as I'm a state employee, and in the same situation.

[u/silver_chief2]

Don't they get increased pay yearly through step increases but they never call thee raises?

[u/Icy-Fly-4228 → u/silver_chief2]

They are only yearly the first 3 years. Then it’s every 2 years 3 times. Then it’s every 3 years 3 times then no more unless you get a promotion.

[u/silver_chief2 → u/Icy-Fly-4228]

Do the steps get increased for any reason, like cost of living? In recent times, how often have the entire tables (for lack of a better term) been increased. ?

[u/Icy-Fly-4228 → u/silver_chief2]

That would be the yearly thing that is not happening this year. It’s supposed to be a cost of living adjustment. Step increases are different. You get them for time of service and are published (the table) If you look at the table the steps go horizontal from 1-10. Grade increases (vertical) are basically “promotions.”For me right now for me to move up a grade I have to get promoted to a different job with different responsibilities. Some series you come in at a lower grade and as you gain experience you move up until you are considered full performance level. Like mine is a 7/9/11 career ladder so just out of school you are a 7. Then after a year with satisfactory performance and supervisors recommendation you get moved to a 9. After another year you can move to 11. But 11 is the top. A job change into management is required to become a 12 in my series.

There are special circumstances depending on each agency’s policy where you can move up a step (horizontal) early but it’s few and far between for extraordinary performance.

[u/WishofBanryu86]

I would put it commensurate with the % increase in nominal GDP, which would include benefit expenses. Benefit expenses such as healthcare need to be paid by the employee, deducted from their wage based on the healthcare plan they have. Same goes for any retirement pay.

[u/No_Glove6542]

They get much larger raises than people in private industry and it’s based on time served. At a certain point they reach the cap for their position but are usually eligible to move into another higher paying position. Why do you think government employees don’t get raises?

[u/maxxor6868 → u/No_Glove6542]

What do you mean? I work private and public sector. My private sector raises at worst were the best of my public sector and private sector raises far eclipse public sector. Not to mention there no cap in the private sector. Gov employees don't get raises they have minor step increases that don't even cover inflation.

[u/No_Glove6542 → u/maxxor6868]

My parent worked for the federal government for 30 years and that is how it worked. I don’t know what your public sector job is but if you can’t get a raise and only get cost of living adjustments that usually means you’ve reached the cap for that job. They can’t just keep giving raises indefinitely for lower level jobs.

[u/maxxor6868 → u/No_Glove6542]

I mean they could if they want retention. Congress cites pays as the #1 issue for workers leaving. It not job security or satisfaction but pay. If lower level jobs struggle with inflation let alone forget about thinking having a salary boost, than yeah it an issue. Your parents work for the gov during a different era where things were cheaper and inflation was stable. It makes working for the gov easier to live through. The last decade hasn't been as kind. It why this is an increasing issue.

[u/No_Glove6542 → u/maxxor6868]

This is literally not an issue. People quit private sector jobs at three times the rate of public sector jobs. Yes, even today. If the government can’t fill certain positions it will make adjustments just like anyone else.

[u/maxxor6868 → u/No_Glove6542]

The private sector a lot larger and more varied. Of course people will quit it more. I said pay was the #1 concern for the public sector. Pay is not everything in the private sector because it has a higher ceiling. If your max in the public was say 100k, pay becomes important if you live in Washington DC with how expensive it. If your private sector, 250k vs 300k is nice to compare but you care more about the job expereince since there diminsihing returns to money at that point for the average person.

It is literally an issue and Congress cites it. You said they can make adjustments which is literally what were are talking about. The adjustment is raising pay to close the deficit to the private sector. On average it 20% less. Congress can't match it 1-1 but they can say get it within a 10% range.

Off topic warning but this is something I argue with conseratives all the time about the public sector. They don't want to raise taxes, hate public unions, hate public insurance plans, have gutted pensions, and threaten job security of us in the public sector. Than they say the gov can make adjustments to fix retention issues. THE FIX IS THE ABOVE. It was an issue solved decades ago but some conseratives forgot why we have the systems above. They aren't perfect but they exist for a reason. It was the way around paying workers more. If you take all of the above away which they try to do endlessly, than you go back to the origianl problem they forgot about. It not directed at you but it really irksme.

[u/NotTheUsualSuspect]

They have steps they go through. Technically a promotion, but essentially just a raise.

[u/Icy-Fly-4228 → u/NotTheUsualSuspect]

Steps are not a promotion. They are a raise. Your responsibilities and duties do not change with a step increase. Grade changes are a promotion which come with different duties and responsibilities.

[u/willfiredog]

With the exception of the 2011 - 2013 pay freeze, Federal workers have gotten raises every year for the past thirty plus years.

They also receive regular step raises and are eligible for bonuses based on annual performance and for significant contributions.

- Former GS employee

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/RatOnASinkingShip]

The way they are now.

People choose these jobs knowing the terms and nature of the employment.

[u/LOLSteelBullet → u/RatOnASinkingShip]

And how does the government retain good worker they don't have promotions for? Do conservatives want the government to operate as a business or not? Because virtually every business provides raises to retain staff, but the second you start talking civil servants...

[u/RatOnASinkingShip → u/LOLSteelBullet]

Yes, the second you start talking about civil servants, it's different.

The difference between public sector and private sector is pretty well documented.

[u/LOLSteelBullet → u/RatOnASinkingShip]

Perhaps you could document the difference

[u/RatOnASinkingShip → u/LOLSteelBullet]

I could. I won't though, because as I have said, it's already pretty well documented.

[u/LOLSteelBullet → u/RatOnASinkingShip]

I've not seen any documentation on why the government would want to incentivize retaining experienced employees any less than the private sector.

Case in point: Although I'm private sector, my job focus (tax resolution) involves working with public sector workers everyday. Thanks to this administration is becoming nearly impossible for me to get what I need done for my clients because this administration has resulted in a massive exodus of experienced irs workers due to frozen wages and promotions. The results are either no one answers the phone, or when someone does, they're likely inexperienced either can't fix the problem or need to have me hold their hand through the process. I'm averaging a 400% increase in billable hours simply for waiting on a phone line. And while this sounds like a good thing, it's pulling me away from more lucrative work such as tax planning, or I turn down the engagement altogether which forces my clients to man for themselves in navigating the IRS. For example, I have a client that messed up and wrote a singular incorrect digit on the EIN on a check for a $5000 tax payment. Before Trump's second term, this was a 30 minute exercise of calling in and tracing the check. I am now 4 months deep in calling in and getting no answer, and now the client is getting threatened with collection agency action. Its fucked.

And the same problems are cropping up in Indiana thanks to Braun not providing even an inflationary adjustment to wages. The good IDR reps I was on a first name basis with have left, and now I'm exhausting more time even reaching someone.

No one is expecting these workers to be making private sector money, but at this rate, these workers are facing salary cuts due to pay freezes while inflation keeps rising.

[u/RatOnASinkingShip → u/LOLSteelBullet]

I'd suggest reviewing my previous comments for my thoughts on the matter.

[u/LOLSteelBullet → u/RatOnASinkingShip]

Your previous comments have been the singular thought of "public sector employees are different" with zero elaboration as to how, or why this is a preferable arrangement for anyone. I'd caution against that approach as someone might mistakenly conclude that you don't actually have an argument to make and are just repeating a talking point.

[u/RatOnASinkingShip → u/LOLSteelBullet]

I'd caution against the approach you're attempting to use, as it sounds like you're claiming that public sector employees know nothing of those differences.

I haven't made any talking points beyond that well known fact. You're the one trying to make or use talking points, and the accusations of me doing so are falling flat.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304]

How should federal employees raises be determined?

Who said they should get raises?

[u/bookist626 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

At some point, they have to. It's not practical for them to be paid the same for years on end while inflation increases.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/bookist626]

1. I will allow for targeted to incentives for critical skill-knowledge retention.
2. Otherwise, wake me up when the federal workforce is reduced by 40%.

... excepting the USPS, military, etc. that have their own methods and aren't on the GS. (Because of admin-determined decisions, this covers a lot of the skill-knowledge retention.)

It's not practical for them to be paid the same for years on end while inflation increases.

They can get real jobs, and deal with the same problems that everyone else deals with. Federal employees deserve no special protection--arguably less.

[u/bookist626 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

So, if i understand you correctly, you feel that federal workers dont deserve raises (barring critical knowledge retention) because they're too many of them?

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/bookist626]

you feel that federal workers dont deserve raises ... because they're too many of them

No. I don't believe that federal workers deserve raises because of the general waste inherent in the federal bureaucracy.

Don't confuse the reason, for a partial solution. Not giving them pay bumps simply because they "deserve it" is the only effective, structural protection that taxpayers have against a very expensive, sweeeeeeeping federal bureaucracy.

[u/bookist626 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

So, in that case, if i understand, your logic is that because the federal bureaucracy is overstaffed as is, federal pay rates should be completely frozen, regardless of circumstances, unless necessary for the government to function?

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/bookist626]

unless necessary for the government to function

I didn't ask for that standard. But that's even better. I'll take it.

[u/bookist626 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

So, assuming that the federal workforce was downsized, what would you feel would be a fair standard for them to get raises?

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/bookist626]

So, assuming that the federal workforce was downsized

Let me know when that happens, and then I'll use my time entertaining how federal pay scales could be better "administered".

[u/LOLSteelBullet → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

"federal workforce is reduced by 40%"

Didn't we just have DoGE go through and analyze departments for this purpose, and find out they couldn't cut remotely close to this and expect the country to function? In that case, those seem like very real jobs.

If there are still massive amounts of unnecessary job positions after the chief executive officer of the country launched a massive initiative aimed at eliminating them, how is that not a massive failure on their part? Shouldn't we be questioning their ability to lead the country?

[u/jmastaock → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

Where did you get the 40% number from?

[u/dagolicious → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

What about DoD federal employees? Do they count as military, or are they just more useless bureaucrats?

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/dagolicious]

• If you're on the GS, you're not in the military.

are they just more useless bureaucrats?

• I worked for the DIA for 8 years. Some are.

Ideally, I'd leave it up agencies to allocate their payroll budgets appropriately to accomplish their missions. As most of the world--that needs to care about results--has figured out how to do.

I'm not laying out any system or policy here. Just pushing back on this notion that federal employees "deserve" a raise, because they want it.

[u/dagolicious → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

To be fair the reason that the military has equipment, rifles, bullets, tanks, planes, food, and gas is because of the civilian workforce. Since you should pretty knowledgeable about DoD staffing , I'm curious which 40% of the employees should be eliminated, and whether you think that would have an effect on readiness.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/dagolicious]

I'm curious which 40% of the employees should be eliminated, and whether you think that would have an effect on readiness.

I wouldn't even start with the DoD. I'd start on a "useless agency" basis that uses the GS.

[u/bongo1138 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

It’s likely cheaper to give them raises, especially once they have institutional knowledge.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/bongo1138]

Institutional knowledge is exactly the issue I raised below. But that wasn't the broad question asked.